Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle

[couchcommander]

IMO you can't really "hide" in these situations given what has already been mentioned, uniforms, guns, etc (minus some specific examples which I will get to later, ie sniper on overlooking hill). Further, your enemy, the insurgents, are all but indistinguishable from the local inhabitants most of time, right up until the moment where they try and kill you. Given that, whatever force you put out into the field, recce, transport, whatever, is not going to know there are enemy about until they are already under attack (similar to Patton's thinking on recce, ie drive down that road until somebody shoots at you). Thus, whatever force this may be, probably recce or transport, needs to be able to absorb the initial attack with hopefully no or minimal casualties, and be able to launch an effective and immediate counter attack. This basically means you need a vehicle that can take most of what the insurgents can dish out (nothing is 100% effective), turn around and shoot back, ie LAV-III with add on armour or cages or whatever, otherwise you are on the loosing end of the stick (the other option is of course dispersing your foces by dismounting them, meaning that in all likelyhood the intial attack will only kill or wound a few soldiers, and as long as they are fairly well trained (ie not Russian conscripts), they can mount a counter attack) (basically in line with Infanteers thinking).

Does this mean recce by "stealth" in a broad sense is dead? No, I don't think so. Couple of options. First, as mentioned above, an interesting idea might be to send out a sniper well in advance of a patrol, and have him take up a position where he can observe a suspect village. Then, make it known that your patrol is going through there, and watch who leaves, hides, etc, thus severly shortening your list of possible insurgents to gather up and interrogate. (I don't know if you guys are already doing this).

Secondly, and most interestingly, is either high altitude UAV or Satellite. Both offer you the ability to watch the enemy without him knowing he is under survellance. One could potentionally monitor supply routes 24/7, observe patrol routes well in advance looking for freshly moved dirt, unusual activities, or even while a patrol is in progress to provide advance notice of an impending attack (I think one of our Sperwars even did this in Afghanistan with a German patrol... I don't specifically remember so don't quote me on this). The possibilities are endless.

Anywho, just some thoughts from a lay man, feel free to shoot me down... 

 

[Lance Wiebe]

A lot of really great arguments here.

A couple of thoughts......

"Recce" as we practice and define it is still a continuation of the training we did against the "evil empire".  Recce, or intelligence gathering, today is, to a large degree, going to be done by various means, including UAV's, satellite, helicopter,and other air assets.  Of course, these will not give us all of the information we need.  There will be a continuing need for recce done on the ground.  The very best recce done on the ground is when a recce element parks their vehicles in a zulu harbour, and conducts a recconnaissance foot patrol.  That is the ultimate recce vehicle, black cadillacs.  Those of us that have conducted recce in the past have gone on many three man patrols to gather information, only using vehicles to get us to the closest, safest, position.

Note that I am not talking about surveillance, the Coyote is well suited to the surveillance role, and will be better once the planned upgrades are completed.

So, if my argument is accepted, that "stealth" recce is best conducted "au pied", then we have need for two vehicles.  One to get the team in to a position to conduct their patrol, which can be done by the Gelandewagen, and the other vehicle to be used for the other traditional recce task, patrolling.  Now, my thoughts are that we need a well aromoured, mobile platform to conduct patrols.  It doesn't matter if the patrol is for route security, showing the flag, or whatever.  We need a tough vehicle that can be used, if necessary, to draw the bad guys out, and to intimidate.  Perhaps a tank?

 

[Infanteer]

So, if my argument is accepted, that "stealth" recce is best conducted "au pied", then we have need for two vehicles.   One to get the team in to a position to conduct their patrol, which can be done by the Gelandewagen, and the other vehicle to be used for the other traditional recce task, patrolling.

Yes, the jeep to get the boots somewhere is what I was looking for - by armouring it up I feel we give the illusion that the recce task will be executed from the platform (doctrine will follow) which seems inapproriate.   A jeep is like a helicopter or a parachute, useful for inserting the boots that will run the recce.

Logically, this infers that "recce" doesn't belong to any hatbadge but rather is a skill (like marksmanship) that should be utilized Army wide by anyone walking point.   Now, of course, those who on point the most (those of the combat arms) are going to need the skills most.   Recce will be done by a Light Infantry Scout Sniper team, a Cav team dismounting its scouts, Engineers clearing routes or Arty guys setting up for the big kill.   As you say, the G-Wagon seems to fit the bill - if something heavier is required, stick them in a CV-90.

Now, my thoughts are that we need a well aromoured, mobile platform to conduct patrols.   It doesn't matter if the patrol is for route security, showing the flag, or whatever.   We need a tough vehicle that can be used, if necessary, to draw the bad guys out, and to intimidate.   Perhaps a tank?

Ooooo, that was subtle.     Yes sir, tank it is. :tank:


Infanteer

 

[Recce41]

Christ
My Father spent, his time in a GD jeep and fox for Recce. This was with someone shooting at him.

 

[C. Ward]

This vehicle is not the ideal vehicle for recce but it is definitly a step in the right direction...It is a sin our guys are conducting patrols in Afghanistan using the LUVW (what a waste).  Let's shake our heads and come up with some useful. :threat:

 

[Unknown C/S]

I said it before in the Armour APV post:


    " Like so many other "purchases" the Gov't will pick something up, deliver it to the military and someone will have to figure out how to employ it.
      At what point will the military receive equipment to fit the role? (i.e Here is a coyote now you guys come up with a plan on how it can be used)
      Don't get me wrong, Good piece of kit, but did the corp specifically ask for it??? (But now I'm off on a tangent.......)"

There I've said it, and I won't mention it again....lol. Whoever has got hold of the govt. credit card for the last 6-7 years is doing a good job of buying gifts. Now if those guys/girls would sit down with the end users you could put an end to "really cool" equipment gathering and obtain stuff that suits the role.
  If someone from DND dropped a brand new John Deere combine on my doorstep I would be impressed....I would show all my friends the shiney new equipment, maybe even take them for a ride. I would probably go on and on about the quality and technological advancements compared to other farm equipment in the country (maybe the world!) Then I would sit back and try to figure out what I'm going to do with it...............Maybe take up farming??

 

[DG-41]

I've always thought there was a place for ultralight, mounted recce, that has a light footprint, relatively low observability, and most importantly, speed.

We did it in Stuarts and a number of different armoured cars in WW2, we did it in Ferret, we did it in Lynx, we even did it in Iltis.

No, you can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys, but that's not the point - get out there, make contact (preferably witout being seen yourself) get the information, get it back to the people who need it. Light calvary, as done since the invention of the horse.

Personally, I'd like to see something like a wheeled version of Lynx, and I've done recce in Bison and that rocked.

But independant of WHAT we do it in, I know we can't do it in Iltis any more. Not because the vehicle isn't suitable, but because our Iltis stocks are in such horrible disrepair that it's frightening. I just did a weekend mounted ex in our Iltis, and I'm frankly HORRIFIED at the state of the vehicles. And knowing that I could pick up a troop's worth of brand new German war stock Iltis for $80k at http://www.iltis.ca makes the fact the we are sending troops out in these shitpiles all that much harder to swallow.

At this point, I really don't care what it is we get, as long as we get a lot of them and we get them NOW (and they come with radios)

DG

 

[Cloud Cover]

I've always thought there was a place for ultralight, mounted recce, that has a light footprint, relatively low observability, and most importantly, speed.

We did it in Stuarts and a number of different armoured cars in WW2, we did it in Ferret, we did it in Lynx, we even did it in Iltis.

No, you can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys, but that's not the point - get out there, make contact (preferably witout being seen yourself) get the information, get it back to the people who need it. Light calvary, as done since the invention of the horse.

Personally, I'd like to see something like a wheeled version of Lynx, and I've done recce in Bison and that rocked.

But independant of WHAT we do it in, I know we can't do it in Iltis any more. Not because the vehicle isn't suitable, but because our Iltis stocks are in such horrible disrepair that it's frightening. I just did a weekend mounted ex in our Iltis, and I'm frankly HORRIFIED at the state of the vehicles. And knowing that I could pick up a troop's worth of brand new German war stock Iltis for $80k at http://www.iltis.ca makes the fact the we are sending troops out in these shitpiles all that much harder to swallow.

At this point, I really don't care what it is we get, as long as we get a lot of them and we get them NOW (and they come with radios)

DG

hey DG- i see your point.  btw... exactly who invented the horse? ;D 

 

[DG-41]

I think recceguy did.... or at least, he was around when it happened.

DG

 

[Kirkhill]

Back again.  

If the fight against the evil empire focused on warfare in the field I get the sense that many here are getting bogged down in urban warfare.  In Afghanistan you have to control BOTH the city and the field.  In the city, with lots of people, all potentially armed and short sight lines, it is relatively easy to get a weapon in range of a target.  It is easy for the bad guys in civvies to ID the guy in uniform.  The converse is difficult.  That is why any int gathering has to rely on the goodwill of the locals.  Fighting for info in the city is counter productive.  You create more enemies than you find.  On the other hand - forces in the city are there to Act in support of the government of the day and also to give a sense of security to the locals.  To give the sense of security, they need to be seen, making them targets.  To be able to act they need to survive meaning that they needed to be well protected.  (That does not necessarily mean hiding behind 70 tonnes of armour plate - it can be shooting down incoming bullets, blinding and deafening suspected insurgents, arresting them - jamming IEDs etc).  Protection is necessary but there are more than one form of protection.  A light vehicle in a controlled environment with active defences may be as effective, if not moreso than a tank, and a whole lot more reassuring to the local population.  You are accepting risks that they have to accept on a daily basis just to go to market.  Who makes up the majority of the victims of these IED explosions?  Its not you guys.  Its the local cops, storekeepers, women and children.  What message are you sending about security if you will only leave camp in a tank?

But the other concern I have is that of controlling the countryside.  It is just as critical to verify that large empty areas are indeed empty.  That requires patrolling.  Empty areas, by definition, are devoid of people.  That suggests that the chance of catching a bullet, or an RPG, or an IED are considerably less than in the city.  Long sight lines means that the enemy, if there, has to engage at a distance.  An RPG isn't going to allow that - the gunner has to be within 200m on an open plain and standing up - if he wants to be a martyr that is a great way to guarantee it.  The enemy is going to need heavier, longer ranged, more expensive weapons than that to get the job done and they are harder to come by.  They are scarcer and harder to deploy.  Even IEDs are less effective if there aren't routes that are consistently employed.  In open country, driving across open terrain negates the ability of the enemy to site a prepared demolition charge.  Mine-resistant vehicles negate the efficacy of general mining of the open spaces.  The risk of injury patrolling the countryside in a jeep or landrover is considerably less than patrolling the city and it is more amenable to "stealthy" tactics.

Now if the same level of mobility afforded to unarmoured jeeps can be handled by a bullet proof, mine resistant vehicle, reducing the risk of patrolling the countryside even further, then I would have thought that would be a good thing.

Many here are arguing for bullet-proof, mine-resistant buses, to get you on and off the base (the Aussie Bushmaster). That is the same level of protection as the APV.

If the Bushmaster is a usefully protected vehicle to drive and infantry section from pillar to post, why isn't the APV a usefully protected vehicle for driving 2 to 4 soldiers around open terrain to verify that there is nobody home?

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I've always thought there was a place for ultralight, mounted recce, that has a light footprint, relatively low observability, and most importantly, speed.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion.

We did it in Stuarts and a number of different armoured cars in WW2, we did it in Ferret, we did it in Lynx, we even did it in Iltis.

Grouping an M-3 Stuart 'Honey' TANK armed with a 37mm with a degree of armoured protection and an Iltis or a Ferret armed with a 7.62mm that the gunner must be exposed to fire which has little if any armour is apples to oranges.

No, you can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys, but that's not the point - get out there, make contact (preferably witout being seen yourself) get the information, get it back to the people who need it. Light calvary, as done since the invention of the horse.

If you've read 'Trading the Sabre for Stealth', you'd realize that having the ability to go toe-to-toe is the point.   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html   :  
Lengthy recce. processes that have been developed in the laboratory of cold war era exercises and NATO training centers (Ie. US NTC) are out the window given the Optempo rate that forces are using in operations, which doesn't allow for a stealthy infiltration of enemy lines, or against an asymetric enemy.    

At this point, I really don't care what it is we get, as long as we get a lot of them and we get them NOW (and they come with radios)

Be careful of what you wish for...

If the Bushmaster is a usefully protected vehicle to drive and infantry section from pillar to post, why isn't the APV a usefully protected vehicle for driving 2 to 4 soldiers around open terrain to verify that there is nobody home?

If all you're doing is driving around to verify nobody's home, then great, but again, we're comparing apples to oranges.  The Bushmaster isn't designed to operate as an infantry fighting vehicle.  The Aussies are using it in 2 modes:

1.  Motorized infantry.  The infantry has the Bushmaster as part of their organic TO&E and it is used as a battlefield taxi, taking the infantry to their debussing point where they enter the fight on foot.  It is not intended to act as an infantry fighting vehicle in high intensity combat operations.  That is why the Aussies retain and have upgraded their M113s for their mech. infantry battalions.

2.  Motorizing Light Infantry.  For operational purposes, light infantry units are transported aboard Bushmasters as they go from mission to mission.  Much the same model as the motorized infantry, but to allow greater economies, the Aussies use a 'plug and play' model for when their light infantry is in need of a ballistic and mine protected transport vehicle.

The APV is something that you're likely going to have to fight out of and given Canadian doctrine, will be leading the 'tip of the spear'.

 

[Recce41]

Its F$%^ing Recce. Its a veh to find and define the enemy. Not go and attack. Christ I'm Pissed.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Its F$%^ing Recce. Its a veh to find and define the enemy. Not go and attack. Christ I'm Pissed.

Have you gone to to toe with a Republican Guard division as a recce. crewman?   Have you been in the middle of an urban firefight against an enemy that has taken on a civilian guise?   Have you experienced a rate of operational advance that would make Rommel or Guderain green with envy?

Rather than venting here about how you're right and we're wrong, why not back your opinion up with some operational experience that provides a basis for your opinion?

 

[DG-41]

If you've read 'Trading the Sabre for Stealth', you'd realize that having the ability to go toe-to-toe is the point.�

I did - and the author misses the obvious point of:

"Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*"

"Don't do that"

If light recce isn't appropriate to the job, then don't use light recce. If you need to fight for information, then you want something heavier. If you are going to want information out of a situation that takes away light recce's speed and stealth, then don't use light recce.

But if you need to cover a large area in a small period of time, if you need a small-footprint, low-observable "go out and find the bad guys" force, and especially if you need that force to be highly flexible, highly inventive, largely self-sustaining, and above all, sneaky - then you use light recce.

DG

 

[Matt_Fisher]

It's not that the author misses the point of how a 'stealth recce' model is successful, it's that you're missing the point in that the biggest advantage that US/Coalition forces have is their ability to conduct operations at a tempo that outstretches the opponents ability to re-orient, reorganize and react.  Under this new form of 'lightning warfare', a lengthy recce. model isn't practical.  What is practical is a vehicle that you can fight for your information and survive.

 

[DG-41]

And I'll claim that the ability of "stealth recce" to survive on the battlefield is largely a function of terrain and training, not tempo.

Certainly back when we were prepped for fighting the Soviet Army were weren't expecting a nice, leisurely operational tempo. Neither would I call WW2 (where the Canadian concept of armoured recce was born, developed, and refined) particularly sluggish with regards to tempo.

Stealth recce, or light recce or light calvary or whatever you want to call it has been proven to work in high-tempo operations. The trick is -as with any other arm - to utilize it effectively in the conditions in which it has maximum advantage. I wouldn't expect light infantry to assault a prepared, fortified position without tank support. I wouldn't expect mechanized infantry to go charging through a swamp. I wouldn't expect to put the guns at the lead of the advance, and I wouldn't put tanks, unsypported by infantry, into an urban operation where the enemy was motivated to fight.

Just because any given arm or tactic or doctrine isn't universally valid, doesn't make it *completely* invalid. There's a time and place to fight for information, and there's a time and place to be fast & sneaky.

You're an American, right? It seems to me that the Americans have never really done light armoured recce in the British/Canadian model. Even your Cav units are far heavier than even the heaviest Canadian formations. Y'all *always* fight for your information.

One thing I will readily grant is that it takes a lot of training to make a good light recce crewman. Light recce operates with a level of personal initiative and overall operational freedom more common to larger formations. It takes wits, smarts, and guts to get the info and get back alive when you can't just stand there and slug it out, and it takes a lot of work to get soldiers working at that level. The tradeoff is that the equipment is that much cheaper, and lord knows the Canadian Armed Forces is all about economy....  :

But just because y'all haven't had much success with it doesn't mean success isn't possible.

DG

 

[Recce41]

Matt
I am not saying I'm right. OOOO I got shot at, so I have been. OOOO I was in Iraq, no I have not but who gives a rats a55.  It is just like our fellas coming from Astan. It is only one type of theatre. Our Doctrine is 2 types of Recce. Recce does not fight battles, maybe the US. But In WW2 American Recce just drove down until they got blown up. The Brits and Aussie, still have our same doctrine.

 

[Infanteer]

And I'll claim that the ability of "stealth recce" to survive on the battlefield is largely a function of terrain and training, not tempo.

So, the American light cav units are simply poorly trained?   This is why they were pulled out of the line?

Certainly back when we were prepped for fighting the Soviet Army were weren't expecting a nice, leisurely operational tempo. Neither would I call WW2 (where the Canadian concept of armoured recce was born, developed, and refined) particularly sluggish with regards to tempo.

Yes, and when exercises were conducted at the NTC, the same was assumed.   However, the author of the paper seems apt in pointing out that even the excellent training environment of the NTC is flawed when held up to case studies of operational experience.

Stealth recce, or light recce or light calvary or whatever you want to call it has been proven to work in high-tempo operations.

Examples please?

The trick is -as with any other arm - to utilize it effectively in the conditions in which it has maximum advantage. I wouldn't expect light infantry to assault a prepared, fortified position without tank support. I wouldn't expect mechanized infantry to go charging through a swamp. I wouldn't expect to put the guns at the lead of the advance, and I wouldn't put tanks, unsypported by infantry, into an urban operation where the enemy was motivated to fight.

Just because any given arm or tactic or doctrine isn't universally valid, doesn't make it *completely* invalid. There's a time and place to fight for information, and there's a time and place to be fast & sneaky.

Sure, the American's employed them as flank screening and rear area support.   Is this the roll we wish our Armoured Corps to revolve around?

You're an American, right? It seems to me that the Americans have never really done light armoured recce in the British/Canadian model. Even your Cav units are far heavier than even the heaviest Canadian formations. Y'all *always* fight for your information.

One thing I will readily grant is that it takes a lot of training to make a good light recce crewman. Light recce operates with a level of personal initiative and overall operational freedom more common to larger formations. It takes wits, smarts, and guts to get the info and get back alive when you can't just stand there and slug it out, and it takes a lot of work to get soldiers working at that level. The tradeoff is that the equipment is that much cheaper, and lord knows the Canadian Armed Forces is all about economy....   :

Check Matt's profile out - he did plenty of time in the Canadian Reserves to know both sides of the fence.   Don't rely on circumstantial ad hominum attacks and use somebody's position to defend your arguement; attack the arguement.

Matt
I am not saying I'm right. OOOO I got shot at, so I have been. OOOO I was in Iraq, no I have not but who gives a rats a55.  It is just like our fellas coming from Astan. It is only one type of theatre. Our Doctrine is 2 types of Recce. Recce does not fight battles, maybe the US. But In WW2 American Recce just drove down until they got blown up. The Brits and Aussie, still have our same doctrine.

Whew, you made me a believer.   Again, the arguement has been presented with a fairly decent supply of evidence to support the conclusions we are making.   If you're going to make an appeal to authority, please back it up more with "I'm pissed!   It's F&$^#N Recce!!"   Iraq seems exactly like opposite theater of Afghanistan - flat desert; in essence, a sandy version of what we prepared for on the plains of Germany.   In fact, it appears to be a dead ringer for the NTC at Ft Irwin.   Why is it that operational expierence is showing that what our Allies have learned in Ft Irwin isn't working on a real-world equivelent?

 

[Big Red]

Recce does not fight battles, maybe the US.

So the person detonating the IED is somehow going to discern that its a 'recce' vehicle driving by and take pity on them?  In the theatre that the US is fighting in right now every vehicle has to be able to take fire and fight back.  Unless you are hadjied up and riding in an old Caprice or Toyota pickup, you are NOT stealth.

 

[Infanteer]

If the fight against the evil empire focused on warfare in the field I get the sense that many here are getting bogged down in urban warfare.  In Afghanistan you have to control BOTH the city and the field.

No, I don't think I'm getting bogged down in the city.  Much of the work we are dealing with is both urban and rural.  I also refer to the "spaces in between"; hence why I posted the video of the HUMVEE getting nailed on a freeway in an open desert.

In the city, with lots of people, all potentially armed and short sight lines, it is relatively easy to get a weapon in range of a target.  It is easy for the bad guys in civvies to ID the guy in uniform.  The converse is difficult.  That is why any int gathering has to rely on the goodwill of the locals.  Fighting for info in the city is counter productive.  You create more enemies than you find.

Unfortunatly, I believe (and it is up for debate) that cities, along with other forms of complex physical terrain, are where our enemy will go.  Cities especially are the center of gravity for the irregular insurgent.  He avoids our strengths by going there; the dumb ones who take to the field will face our strengths - we won't even have to worry about recceing them out because the USAF will wipe them off the map.  There is a reason the Americans have fought in Nasiriya, An Najaf, and Fallujah and not in some wadi.

What message are you sending about security if you will only leave camp in a tank?

That you don't want to die?  I would assume the same message would be sent with a LAV.  If you don't want to harden, diffuse - send your scout/sniper - Light Infantry teams to meld into the local environment.

But the other concern I have is that of controlling the countryside.  It is just as critical to verify that large empty areas are indeed empty.  That requires patrolling.  Empty areas, by definition, are devoid of people.  That suggests that the chance of catching a bullet, or an RPG, or an IED are considerably less than in the city.  Long sight lines means that the enemy, if there, has to engage at a distance.  An RPG isn't going to allow that - the gunner has to be within 200m on an open plain and standing up - if he wants to be a martyr that is a great way to guarantee it.  The enemy is going to need heavier, longer ranged, more expensive weapons than that to get the job done and they are harder to come by.  They are scarcer and harder to deploy.  Even IEDs are less effective if there aren't routes that are consistently employed.  In open country, driving across open terrain negates the ability of the enemy to site a prepared demolition charge.  Mine-resistant vehicles negate the efficacy of general mining of the open spaces.  The risk of injury patrolling the countryside in a jeep or landrover is considerably less than patrolling the city and it is more amenable to "stealthy" tactics.

Now if the same level of mobility afforded to unarmoured jeeps can be handled by a bullet proof, mine resistant vehicle, reducing the risk of patrolling the countryside even further, then I would have thought that would be a good thing.
Many here are arguing for bullet-proof, mine-resistant buses, to get you on and off the base (the Aussie Bushmaster). That is the same level of protection as the APV.

If the Bushmaster is a usefully protected vehicle to drive and infantry section from pillar to post, why isn't the APV a usefully protected vehicle for driving 2 to 4 soldiers around open terrain to verify that there is nobody home?

Okay, so we're focussing on patrolling - SASO, Insurgencies, Peace Enforcement, Peace Support operations.  We're not broaching the warfighting scenario anymore.  For this, I'll recall KevinB's comment a while back:

Recce in PSO's and Lower to Mid Intensity battles/conflicts has to interact with the populace to gain info.  Recconaisance is NOT surviellance - nor is it driving down a road ignoring, and offending the locals...

I fail to see how this system does anything better than a GWagon or Coyote/LAV

If we are going into the countryside to take a peak, we need the open vehicles; ignoring and offending the locals in a box is not conducive to "rural recce".  If the situation is too dangerous, send out a LAV - it seems to have a proven track record in surviving attacks; much more than the technical (in our cases of reference, a HUMVEE).  Deploy your scouts on foot from the back when you want to check things out.  Set up surveillence assets if the situation warrants it.  This was the original context of my argument - this vehicle offers nothing that we don't already have and seems to be a poor attempt to be an "in-between vehicle", unable to supply the full advantage that the vehicle above or below it offers us.